SKS vs AK-47, are you thinking about buying one?

[drjoker]

OK,

I recently tested a Norinco SKS and Norinco MAK-90.

The SKS shot 3-4 inch groups at 100 yards free handed with iron sights shooting Herter's Hollow Point 7.62 x 39 mm ammo.

The MAK-90 shot 6-7 inch groups at 100 yards free handed with iron sights shooting Herter's Soft Point 7.62x x 39 mm ammo.

The SKS is twice as accurate as the AK-47 AND it costs 1/3 as much as an AK-47. For homestead defense only, buy an AK-47 due to the high capacity magazine. If you want to go hunting with your gun and defend your home with it, then I suggest the SKS instead.

[MechAg94]

Not all AKs are that inaccurate. I have one that shoots about that good, but others that are better. 3 to 4 MOA is what they ought to do IMO. Some 5.45 AK can do 2 to 3 MOA. I think the Zastava I got does 4 to 5 MOA consistently. My Vepr 5.45 does better.

The Yugo SKS I used to have did about that same accuracy.

[The Annoyed Man]

FWIW, I think the error you want to avoid is making generalities about AKs, SKSs, and AKs compared to SKSs in general, based on a single sample of each. That's not even a statistically significant comparison. You would need to fire 100s of each type of rifle before you could make a generally valid statement about either platform, or make a generally valid comparison between the two platforms.

[Hindenburg]

The SKS is twice as accurate as the AK-47 AND it costs 1/3 as much as an AK-47. For homestead defense only, buy an AK-47 due to the high capacity magazine. If you want to go hunting with your gun and defend your home with it, then I suggest the SKS instead.

Where did you find SKS selling for less than $200?

[ripnbst]

There are Ak's that will do MOA(ish) group sizes with irons. The Arsenal offerings come to mind. With as cheap as AR15's are today, I'd just buy one of those. The main reason I'd look at an AK is because it's cheap, only its not anymore. You can get an optics ready carbine AR15 for around $600 right now.

[drjoker]

The SKS is twice as accurate as the AK-47 AND it costs 1/3 as much as an AK-47. For homestead defense only, buy an AK-47 due to the high capacity magazine. If you want to go hunting with your gun and defend your home with it, then I suggest the SKS instead.

Where did you find SKS selling for less than $200?

Where did I say that I bought it for $200?!

Several years ago, I bought an SKS for $220 at a gun show. At the same show, I bought an AK for $700. Both were Norinco. Although prices increase with inflation, I assume that the ratio of an AK's price is still the same when you buy an SKS.

$1250 MAK-90: http://www.gunsamerica.com/940613504/No ... le-5-5.htm
$435 SKS: http://www.gunsamerica.com/956801409/No ... ke-New.htm

$435 is roughly 1/3 of $1250.

[drjoker]

There are Ak's that will do MOA(ish) group sizes with irons. The Arsenal offerings come to mind. With as cheap as AR15's are today, I'd just buy one of those. The main reason I'd look at an AK is because it's cheap, only its not anymore. You can get an optics ready carbine AR15 for around $600 right now.

Yep, that's why I bought my first AR recently. I've seen used ARs go for $450. That's the price of a Norinco SKS. With the cost of 3rd world labor going up and the cost of computer controlled automated production going down, strangely, SKS and Aks cost more than an AR-15. They're both great rifles, but since an AR is cheaper, I would recommend an entry level AR over a top of the line AK.

I've seen used M&P 15 Sports go for $450: http://www.armslist.com/posts/3563721/h ... p-15-sport. I guarantee you that a M&P 15 Sport is a much nicer rifle than a SKS. I like SKS rifles at a $100 to $200 price point, not at a $450 price point. AK-47s are great rifles at a $700 or below price point, but not for over $1000, which is what Norincos have been going for lately. For $1000, you can buy a very nice Colt or Wyndham Weaponry top of the line AR-15 or two used M&P 15 Sports.

The recent price of an AK-47 in Afghanistan is $1500!!! Crazy!!! (Heath Druzin, “Fearing post-2014 environment, Afghans buy up weapons,” Stars and Stripes, December 5, 2012.) Maybe they should by AR-15's instead

[MechAg94]

I agree that SKS's are fine at the $250 or less price point, but you might as well upgrade to an cheaper AK or AR beyond that. I didn't ever trust the 30 round mag extenders for the SKS, though many have them that work.

On the cheap AK's versus cheap AR? A cheap AR will likely be more accurate and be perfectly reliable for most casual shooters given quality magazines. Also, parts like the trigger can be easily upgraded. A cheap AK ought to take more physical abuse and still work okay if you think that is required.

That said, top of the line AK's are sweet guns if you can afford it. I have a Vepr K that is a great rifle. Of course, the nice BCM AR upper I got this year is a sweet rifle also. For top of the line, get both.

I would also say that the recent price drops in AR mags make the 30 round mags for AK's and AR's about the same price with AR aluminum mags being a little cheaper just now.

[tbond75]

My NPAP is a great shooter for the money.

[PUCKER]

I bought an SKS Paratrooper model years ago for $89. It was the first rifle I ever bought, this was around 1995. I was at the gun show and a buddy insisted that I should buy it. A great decision! This was when I was right out of college and had some disposable income. I converted it to accept 30 round mags and loaded up on those. Eventually I got into deer hunting with a nice Weatherby but I decided to make the SKS a backup hunting rifle, especially to let folks borrow if needed. It has an economy model (ie - CHEAP) Tasco 9x scope on it. I've been very impressed with it. From the bench at 100 yards I've got 5 shot 1.5 inch groups.

I still kick around the idea of an AK but I'm very happy with the SKS. It is currently a safe queen, like most of my guns, even my newest, an AR with an EOTECH. I'm just not into guns as much as I was when I was in my 20s/30s. My EDC guns are pretty much the only ones that see the light of day and range time. Other hobbies and all...

I will say that my wife wanted a real AK (full auto) until she saw what they were going for LOL. I only have one rock and roll item and that's enough for now. Also bought in my 20s before they went stupid priced LOL.

[The Annoyed Man]

People buy these kinds of rifles for a lot of different reasons. It could be simply an addition to a historical collection, or a home defense gun, or an "end of times" gun, or a hunting rifle, etc., etc. I have a very modest collection by some standards, but my collection contains rifles that fit into all of those categories. So, I don't really need either the SKS or the AK to fill a role for a rifle that isn't already filled. Consequently, I'm not thinking of buying either rifle at this time, except in a sort of general "gee, it would be kinda cool to have one some day" way; but this is what I consider whenever I do think about it.....

First, the lines of the SKS appeal to me more than the AK's. To many people, guns are tools, and nothing more, and they are tools for me also; but, I can look at a cheap set of Harbor Freight Chinese import socket wrenches and a set of Snapon socket wrenches, and I can tell you which one I prefer. The Snapons are not only better made, with a better warranty, but they are "nicer".....if that is a term that others can understand. That parameter, "niceness", is an intangible which may or may not appeal to any two people looking at the same socket set at the same moment.

Now, I am not saying that the SKS is a "nicer" rifle than an AK. Some of the pricier AKs are very well appointed rifles and well worth the cost in terms of workmanship and build quality. But, there is such a thing as an intangible parameter about the way a weapon looks, and whether or not that look appeals to the viewer in some kind of emotional way is a matter strictly of individual tastes. I like the SKS in that way, and I do not like the AK the same way. This has literally nothing to do with which gun I'd pick in a last stand gun battle, and everything to do with which weapon makes me happy to own because I prefer its lines.....much like people can agree that both Monet and Degas are great Impressionists, but one person's tastes are drawn more to Degas than Monet, and it would make that person happier to own the Degas than the Monet..... .....and no, I am not comparing an SKS to great and enduring paintings. I'm just saying that it appeals more to me on some kind of esthetic level than the AK does.

If I had two choose strictly on which of the two guns I'd rather take to the Alamo, I'd take the AK hands down simply for the reason of its magazine capacity. I honestly don't know a thing about the SKS's reliability record, but I do know about the AK's, and that is something that you can pretty much bank on. But I don't have to make that distinction, and I already have guns I would rather take to the Alamo than an AK. Yes.... I know.... AKs are supposed to be more reliable that ARs on some level.... but I don't care, I prefer ARs to AKs; I am more familiar with the manual of arms, I have great respect for the under-appreciated 5.56 caliber (which is better than a lot of people give it credit for); and if I need one in a heavier caliber, I've got an AR10, and .308 Winchester beats 7.62x39 like a red-headed stepchild at a family gathering.

Since both the AK and AR platforms are still in use by the world's militaries, they are still "modern" weapons, never mind that the design of one goes back to post-WW2, and the other to the early Vietnam era. But the SKS has the esthetic appeal of an older historical era of weapons, in the same manner that the Garand or the M14 has. To me, although it is more powerful, the SKS has similar appeal as the M1 Carbine. The lines of the stock harken back to an older time.....a time when battle rifle and fighting carbine stocks were one piece of wood from butt-stock to fore-end. Other rifles that have that same kind of appeal are the Swiss K-31, the French MAS-49, and the Soviet SVT-38 and SVT-40 .

So that is why my "emotional" preference is for the SKS. And, at least at this point in my life, that emotional preference is what would likely drive the purchase. Some day, I'll probably own both; but the SKS will probably come first because the purchase isn't being driven by any zombie-apocalypse thinking, end-of-times thinking, reliability thinking, or any of the other parameters like accuracy, capacity, power, etc.

I just prefer the way the SKS looks.

[Hindenburg]

The SKS is twice as accurate as the AK-47 AND it costs 1/3 as much as an AK-47. For homestead defense only, buy an AK-47 due to the high capacity magazine. If you want to go hunting with your gun and defend your home with it, then I suggest the SKS instead.

Where did you find SKS selling for less than $200?

Where did I say that I bought it for $200?!

AK is $600 so I was comparing apples to apples. Too bad. SKS might be worth buying at $150 - $200. Not much more.

[Weg]

I remember the days when Chicom SKS's went for $99.00 and MAK's went for $199.00. I bought 2 SKS's and a MAK. Yes, I found the SKS's to be more accurate, especially after glass bedding the forward lug area. However, here I am 24 years later and the SKS's are long gone... I still have the Chinese AK, overall they are just better combat guns in my opinion. One thing that I found that greatly increased the accuracy of my AK was placing a Texas Weapon Systems top cover on it, and mounting one of their rear peep sights as far back as I could. I cut my groups in half, which brings it to about 3" or so groups at 100 yds. If I want better accuracy than that, I break out my AR's.